GREENVILLE, DARKE COUNTY OH - A PIT BULL AND A SHEPHERD TYPE DOG ATTACKED A 13-YEAR-OLD BOY RIDING HIS BIKE HOME FROM A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

The father and grandmother of a 13-year-old who was recently bitten by a dog on a Greenville street are asking Darke County Commissioners to take a look at the county’s quarantine policy.

The boy’s dad, Shawn Crumrine and grandmother, Mary Keenor attended the April 18 county commission meeting.

The two dogs that bit his son, Crumrine said “don’t have licenses or registration” and have bitten before.

Following the commission meeting, Crumrine said that after his son’s incident, neighbors approached him about the same dogs being involved in several other attacks.

According to Crumrine and the Darke County Animal Shelter, the dogs belong to Jaime Hensel, who resides in the 100 block of Euclid Street. Attempts to reach Hensel for comment were not returned.

Hensel has received two charges, failure to control a dangerous dog and failure to control a dog.

The bite took place a block away from Euclid, in front of the boy’s home at 500 Penn St.

“They chased him down Central,” Crumrine said, explaining that on Tuesday, April 5, his son was riding his bike home just after dark from the junior high parking lot. After riding the space of about three homes, Crumrine said his son saw the dogs come out and encircle him. “He pedaled as fast as he could. One dog tried to bite his tire. When he got to the box truck sitting in front of the garage, the PIT BULL attacked his arm. He kicked it off and the other dog attacked. The pit bull came back after him.”

The other dog was a "SHEPHERD-TYPE" animal, Crumrine said.

Neighbors, Crumrine said, told him the dogs had previously bitten a post office worker, who lives nearby. At that time, neighbors said, the dog’s owner was instructed to “put the dogs down” but had not complied.

Crumrine said he hopes commissioners, as well as city officials, will take into consideration his request.

“I want animal owners to be completely responsible for their dogs,” he said. “They should be licensed and have their rabies shots.”

“The dogs are in quarantine, but I don’t think quarantine should be left up to the homeowner. They are too cIose to the animal. And they (homeowners) aren’t the victims. I want them (dogs) to be quarantined at the animal shelter.”

Crumrine asked commission to consider that the policy be changed so dogs that bite be “placed in immediate custody” of the animal shelter.

Since the attack took place within city limits, Commissioner Diane Delaplane told Crumrine to check on the city of Greenville’s policy as well.

Crumrine was planning on attending the April 19 city commission meeting to bring his request to their attention.

“I’ve hired an attorney,” Crumrine said, noting that a hearing had been scheduled in probate court for Hensel.

Crumrine is asking for lost compensation for his wife’s wages the week she stayed home with their son following the incident, full compensation to their insurance company for medical procedures and up to $175,000 per dog involved in the incident.

His son received numerous stitches and is in the process of receiving rabies shots.

"This was not a one dog attack," he said. "These dogs were trying to bring him down. I don't want to face what happened a couple years ago in Dayton" referring to KLONDA RICHEY who was mauled to death in her driveway when her neighbor's dogs attacked her in February 2014. The dogs were killed by police when they attempted to attack the officer who responded to the 911 call.

Just a couple weeks before the Greenville biting incident, local residents became aware of an online petition asking Darke County Animal Shelter to revise its policy on euthanizing pit bull-type dogs. The petition appears on the website change.org. People from across the United States have signed the petition and called the animal shelter.

Darke County Animal Shelter Director Duane Sanning has been fielding these calls, but is not comfortable with changing the county’s policy.

“How can I adopt out a pit bull to a family with kids, with another dog of a family cat without being able to evaluate them?” he told The Early Bird last week.

Sanning said most temperament testing procedures “have been proven to the degree of yes you do or no you don’t.”

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.